Becker is regarded by all as the real #1 of 1989. He also owned Lendl in big matches. That said yes Lendl is the greater and more achieved player in every way- slams, dominance, consistency, versatility, years at #1, everything except popularity and arguably talent (Lendl used all his, Becker did not).

Click to expand...

That's exactly my point.

You say the "real" number #1. Then you are not going by the numbers. We all know that in reality that Becker is a GOAT even though he was NEVER the year end #1.

By the way am argument can even be made that Becker was the better player. Numbers are not everything.

Lendl could never win Wimbledon. Not all grand slams are created equal. Wimbledon is the most important slam . Therefore an argument can be made that Becker was the greater player.

But if you go by the numbers on paper robotically then yes Lendl is the greater player.

By the way not even Wimbledon goes by the numbers. They choose who the #1 seed for a tournament by a commitee an vote on it. They do not use the ranking system ( unless that's changed? But they used to just use opinion ).

I do agree that Fed didn't really have any big competition. Forget about Roddick, Hewitt, Safin... However, it's not his fault. He was winning matches, sometimes because everyone was sh!tting their pants when they saw Roger.

Then a little buttpicker "showed up". again, the worst match up in tennis history. One thing I hate about Fed is that he simply refused to adapt, he was too stubborn.

Click to expand...

I agree with 99% of everything you said.

Except for the "bad matchup" thing.

A bad matchup is something like Nadal Vs Davydenko or Blake on hard courts .
Davydenko an Blake are good players but they rarely made it to a slam final and never won a slam or were ranked #1.

Nadal wasn't some weird bad matchup . Nadal beat everyone. His style of play was difficult for everyone across the board. That's why Nadal won 11 slams was ranked #1 in the world and I don't know how many finals he has made.

A bad matchup is something like Nadal Vs Davydenko or Blake on hard courts .
Davydenko an Blake are good players but they rarely made it to a slam final and never won a slam or were ranked #1.

Nadal wasn't some weird bad matchup . Nadal beat everyone. His style of play was difficult for everyone across the board. That's why Nadal won 11 slams was ranked #1 in the world and I don't know how many finals he has made.

A bad matchup is something like Nadal Vs Davydenko or Blake on hard courts .
Davydenko an Blake are good players but they rarely made it to a slam final and never won a slam or were ranked #1.

Nadal wasn't some weird bad matchup . Nadal beat everyone. His style of play was difficult for everyone across the board. That's why Nadal won 11 slams was ranked #1 in the world and I don't know how many finals he has made.

this thread will veer into the "bad matchup/not bad matchup" stuff, starting from post #2010. Everyone ready? Set, go...
FYI, there was another so much older thread already on this matchup. You guys can find it, copy and paste when arguing w/ TDK. Save your fingers some work, would you?

#1 is bs because on paper it says who the best in the world is but in reality it's not true.

The entire ranking system tries to put a scientific ranking system on something that is not scientific .

That's why Serena and Venus continually beat the number 1 ranked player. That's why Sampras ranked like number 30 or something won the USO....that's why Becker beat Lendl back to back at wimby and then the USO and still was not the #1 player.